Discovery BoxIsaiah 56:11
Context56:11 The dogs have big appetites;
they are never full. 1
They are shepherds who have no understanding;
they all go their own way,
each one looking for monetary gain. 2
Psalms 92:6
Context92:6 The spiritually insensitive do not recognize this;
the fool does not understand this. 3
Proverbs 2:5-9
Context2:5 then you will understand 4 how to fear the Lord, 5
and you will discover 6 knowledge 7 about God. 8
2:6 For 9 the Lord gives 10 wisdom,
and from his mouth 11 comes 12 knowledge and understanding.
2:7 He stores up 13 effective counsel 14 for the upright, 15
and is like 16 a shield 17 for those who live 18 with integrity, 19
2:8 to guard 20 the paths of the righteous 21
and to protect 22 the way of his pious ones. 23
2:9 Then you will understand 24 righteousness and justice
and equity – every 25 good 26 way. 27
Proverbs 28:5
Context28:5 Evil people 28 do not understand justice, 29
but those who seek the Lord 30 understand it all.
Jeremiah 5:21
Context5:21 Tell them: ‘Hear this,
you foolish people who have no understanding,
who have eyes but do not discern,
who have ears but do not perceive: 31
Daniel 12:10
Context12:10 Many will be purified, made clean, and refined, but the wicked will go on being wicked. None of the wicked will understand, though the wise will understand.
Hosea 14:9
Context14:9 Who is wise?
Let him discern 32 these things!
Who is discerning?
Let him understand them!
For the ways of the Lord are right;
the godly walk in them,
but in them the rebellious stumble.
Matthew 12:34
Context12:34 Offspring of vipers! How are you able to say anything good, since you are evil? For the mouth speaks from what fills the heart.
John 5:44
Context5:44 How can you believe, if you accept praise 33 from one another and don’t seek the praise 34 that comes from the only God? 35
John 8:43
Context8:43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept 36 my teaching. 37
John 12:39-40
Context12:39 For this reason they could not believe, 38 because again Isaiah said,
12:40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart, 39
so that they would not see with their eyes
and understand with their heart, 40
and turn to me, 41 and I would heal them.” 42
John 12:2
Context12:2 So they prepared a dinner for Jesus 43 there. Martha 44 was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table 45 with him.
John 2:14
Context2:14 46 He found in the temple courts 47 those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. 48
[56:11] 1 sn The phrase never full alludes to the greed of the leaders.
[56:11] 2 tn Heb “for his gain from his end.”
[92:6] 3 tn Heb “the brutish man does not know, and the fool does not understand this.” The adjective בַּעַר (ba’ar, “brutish”) refers to spiritual insensitivity, not mere lack of intelligence or reasoning ability (see Pss 49:10; 73:22; Prov 12:1; 30:2, as well as the use of the related verb in Ps 94:8).
[2:5] 4 tn The verb בִּין (bin, “to perceive; to understand; to discern”) refers to ability to grasp, discern or be sensitive to what it means to fear the
[2:5] 5 tn Heb “the fear of the
[2:5] 6 tn Heb “find” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).
[2:5] 7 tn The term דַּעַת (da’at, “knowledge”) goes beyond cognition; it is often used metonymically (cause) for obedience (effect); see, e.g., Prov 3:6, “in all your ways acknowledge him,” and BDB 395 s.v. This means that the disciple will follow God’s moral code; for to know God is to react ethically and spiritually to his will (e.g., J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 18).
[2:5] 8 tn Heb “knowledge of God.” The noun is an objective genitive.
[2:6] 9 tn This is a causal clause. The reason one must fear and know the
[2:6] 10 tn The verb is an imperfect tense which probably functions as a habitual imperfect describing a universal truth in the past, present and future.
[2:6] 11 sn This expression is an anthropomorphism; it indicates that the
[2:6] 12 tn The verb “comes” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
[2:7] 13 tc The form is a Kethib/Qere reading. The Kethib וְצָפַן (vÿtsafan; Qal perfect + vav consecutive) is supported by the LXX and Syriac. The Qere יִצְפֹּן (yitspon; Qal imperfect) is supported by the Aramaic Targum of Prov 2:7 (the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures were called Targums) and Latin Vulgate. Internal evidence favors the imperfect; another imperfect appears in v. 6a with a similar sense. The Qere is normally preferred; the scribes are indicating that the received reading is corrupt. The Kethib reflects orthographic confusion between י (yod) and ו (vav). As in v. 6a, this Qal imperfect functions as a habitual imperfect describing a universal truth in past, present and future.
[2:7] 14 tn The noun תּוּשִׁיָּה (tushiyyah) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “sound wisdom” (so KJV, NRSV); “effective counsel” and (2) result (metonymy of effect): “abiding success” (BDB 444 s.v.; W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 388; cf. NIV “victory”). It refers to competent wisdom and its resultant ability to achieve moral success (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 80).
[2:7] 15 sn The Hebrew word translated “upright” (יָשָׁר, yashar) is one of the terms used for the righteous. It points to the right conduct of the believer – that which is right or pleasing in the eyes of God. It stresses that the life of the individual is upright, straightforward, and just. It is paralleled with “those who walk in integrity.”
[2:7] 16 tn The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.
[2:7] 17 tn The word can be taken as in apposition explaining the subject of the first colon – the
[2:7] 18 tn Heb “walk.” The verb “to walk” (הָלַךְ, halakh) is an idiom (based upon hypocatastasis: implied comparison) for habitual manner of life (BDB 234 s.v. 3.e).
[2:7] 19 tn Heb “those who walk of integrity.” The noun תֹם (tom, “integrity”) functions as a genitive of manner.
[2:8] 20 tn The infinitive construct לִנְצֹר (lintsor, “to guard”) designates the purpose of the
[2:8] 21 tn Heb “paths of righteousness.” The word “righteousness” is a possessive genitive, signifying the ways that the righteous take.
[2:8] 22 tn The imperfect tense verb יִשְׁמֹר (yishmor, “to protect”) continues the syntactical nuance of the preceding infinitive construct of purpose.
[2:8] 23 tc The Kethib is the singular noun + 3rd person masculine singular suffix חֲסִידוֹ (khasido) “his pious one.” The Qere reads the plural noun + 3rd person masculine singular suffix חֲסִידָיו (khasidav) “his pious ones.” The LXX εὐλαβουμένων αὐτόν (eujlaboumenwn aujton) supports the Qere reading.
[2:9] 24 tn Heb “discern.” See preceding note on בִּין (bin) in 2:5.
[2:9] 25 tn The phrase “every good way” functions appositionally to the preceding triad of righteous attributes, further explaining and defining them.
[2:9] 26 tn Heb “every way of good.” The term טוֹב (tov, “good”) functions as an attributive genitive: “good way.”
[2:9] 27 tn Heb “track”; KJV, NIV, NRSV “path.” The noun מַעְגַּל (ma’gal) is used (1) literally of “wagon-wheel track; firm path” and (2) figuratively (as a metaphor) to describe the course of life (Pss 17:5; 23:3; 140:6; Prov 2:9, 15, 18; 4:11, 26; 5:6, 21; Isa 26:7; 59:8; see BDB 722-23 s.v. 2; KBL 2:609). It is related to the feminine noun עֲגָלָה (’agalah, “cart”) and the verb עָגַל (’agal) “to be round” (Qal) and “to roll” (Niphal). As a wagon-wheel cuts a deep track in a much traversed dirt road, so a person falls into routines and habits that reveal his moral character. In Proverbs the “paths” of the righteous are characterized by uprightness and integrity.
[28:5] 28 tn Heb “men of evil”; the context does not limit this to males only, however.
[28:5] 29 tn The term translated “justice” is מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat); it refers to the legal rights of people, decisions that are equitable in the community. W. G. Plaut observes that there are always those who think that “justice” is that which benefits them, otherwise it is not justice (Proverbs, 282).
[28:5] 30 sn The contrast (and the difference) is between the wicked and those who seek the
[5:21] 31 tn Heb “they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear.”
[14:9] 32 tn The shortened form of the prefix-conjugation verb וְיָבֵן (vÿyaven) indicates that it is a jussive rather than an imperfect. When a jussive comes from a superior to an inferior, it may connote exhortation and instruction or advice and counsel. For the functions of the jussive, see IBHS 568-70 §34.3.
[5:44] 33 tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).
[5:44] 34 tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).
[5:44] 35 tc Several early and important witnesses (Ì66,75 B W a b sa) lack θεοῦ (qeou, “God”) here, thus reading “the only one,” while most of the rest of the tradition, including some important
[8:43] 36 tn Grk “you cannot hear,” but this is not a reference to deafness, but rather hearing in the sense of listening to something and responding to it.
[12:39] 38 sn The author explicitly states here that Jesus’ Jewish opponents could not believe, and quotes Isa 6:10 to show that God had in fact blinded their eyes and hardened their heart. This OT passage was used elsewhere in the NT to explain Jewish unbelief: Paul’s final words in Acts (28:26-27) are a quotation of this same passage, which he uses to explain why the Jewish people have not accepted the gospel he has preached. A similar passage (Isa 29:10) is quoted in a similar context in Rom 11:8.
[12:40] 39 tn Or “closed their mind.”
[12:40] 40 tn Or “their mind.”
[12:40] 41 tn One could also translate στραφῶσιν (strafwsin) as “repent” or “change their ways,” but both of these terms would be subject to misinterpretation by the modern English reader. The idea is one of turning back to God, however. The words “to me” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.
[12:40] 42 sn A quotation from Isa 6:10.
[12:2] 43 tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity and to conform with contemporary English style.
[12:2] 44 tn Grk “And Martha.” The connective καί (kai, “and”) has been omitted in the translation because it would produce a run-on sentence in English.
[12:2] 45 tn Grk “reclining at the table.”
[2:14] 46 sn John 2:14-22. Does John’s account of the temple cleansing describe the same event as the synoptic gospels describe, or a separate event? The other accounts of the cleansing of the temple are Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46. None are as long as the Johannine account. The fullest of the synoptic accounts is Mark’s. John’s account differs from Mark’s in the mention of sheep and oxen, the mention of the whip of cords, the Greek word κερματιστῆς (kermatisths) for money changer (the synoptics use κολλυβιστῆς [kollubisths], which John mentions in 2:15), the scattering of the coins (2:15), and the command by Jesus, “Take these things away from here!” The word for overturned in John is ἀναστρεφω (anastrefw), while Matthew and Mark use καταστρεφω (katastrefw; Luke does not mention the moneychangers at all). The synoptics all mention that Jesus quoted Isa 56:7 followed by Jer 7:11. John mentions no citation of scripture at all, but says that later the disciples remembered Ps 69:9. John does not mention, as does Mark, Jesus’ prohibition on carrying things through the temple (i.e., using it for a shortcut). But the most important difference is one of time: In John the cleansing appears as the first great public act of Jesus’ ministry, while in the synoptics it is virtually the last. The most common solution of the problem, which has been endlessly discussed among NT scholars, is to say there was only one cleansing, and that it took place, as the synoptics record it, at the end of Jesus’ ministry. In the synoptics it appears to be the event that finalized the opposition of the high priest, and precipitated the arrest of Jesus. According to this view, John’s placing of the event at the opening of Jesus’ ministry is due to his general approach; it was fitting ‘theologically’ for Jesus to open his ministry this way, so this is the way John records it. Some have overstated the case for one cleansing and John’s placing of it at the opening of Jesus’ public ministry, however. For example W. Barclay stated: “John, as someone has said, is more interested in the truth than in the facts. He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the Temple” (John [DSBS], 94). But this is not the impression one gets by a reading of John’s Gospel: The evangelist seems to go out of his way to give details and facts, including notes of time and place. To argue as Barclay does that John is interested in truth apart from the facts is to set up a false dichotomy. Why should one have to assume, in any case, that there could have been only one cleansing of the temple? This account in John is found in a large section of nonsynoptic material. Apart from the work of John the Baptist – and even this is markedly different from the references in the synoptics – nothing else in the first five chapters of John’s Gospel is found in any of the synoptics. It is certainly not impossible that John took one isolated episode from the conclusion of Jesus’ earthly ministry and inserted it into his own narrative in a place which seemed appropriate according to his purposes. But in view of the differences between John and the synoptics, in both wording and content, as well as setting and time, it is at least possible that the event in question actually occurred twice (unless one begins with the presupposition that the Fourth Gospel is nonhistorical anyway). In support of two separate cleansings of the temple, it has been suggested that Jesus’ actions on this occasion were not permanent in their result, and after (probably) 3 years the status quo in the temple courts had returned to normal. And at this time early in Jesus’ ministry, he was virtually unknown. Such an action as he took on this occasion would have created a stir, and evoked the response John records in 2:18-22, but that is probably about all, especially if Jesus’ actions met with approval among part of the populace. But later in Jesus’ ministry, when he was well-known, and vigorously opposed by the high-priestly party in Jerusalem, his actions might have brought forth another, harsher response. It thus appears possible to argue for two separate cleansings of the temple as well as a single one relocated by John to suit his own purposes. Which then is more probable? On the whole, more has been made of the differences between John’s account and the synoptic accounts than perhaps should have been. After all, the synoptic accounts also differ considerably from one another, yet few scholars would be willing to posit four cleansings of the temple as an explanation for this. While it is certainly possible that the author did not intend by his positioning of the temple cleansing to correct the synoptics’ timing of the event, but to highlight its significance for the course of Jesus’ ministry, it still appears somewhat more probable that John has placed the event he records in the approximate period of Jesus’ public ministry in which it did occur, that is, within the first year or so of Jesus’ public ministry. The statement of the Jewish authorities recorded by the author (this temple has been under construction for forty-six years) would tend to support an earlier rather than a later date for the temple cleansing described by John, since 46 years from the beginning of construction on Herod’s temple in ca. 19
[2:14] 47 tn Grk “in the temple.”
[2:14] 48 tn Grk “the money changers sitting”; the words “at tables” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.
